Former UFC Champion talks about Gun Control

Exactly! Now you are getting it!

NO, no they are not, that is why marketing using celebs to endorse products works, because people make associations based on the person pitching the product. This is a very fundamental concept. Are you trying to sound wise

i think that that is great and good on him for doing that.

HGUNHNTR

I think the difference is that Mr. Mir stated one sentance about shooting his rifles in a "shooting sport" context, the rest was about using and training with a handgun specifically for the use of self defense and discussed reasons he disagreed with many popular and well known anti-points against the use of them.

We must be realistic about this because many discussions on this board about self defense are "mindset" and that mindset must be "go all out till the threat is stopped" and this is a bloody and violent mind set to have. It is atleast mine and to thoughs who would say "that makes you a violent person" I say fine. I want to inflict no violence on anyone but if you bring it to me then it's not my choice but rather my decision to lose or surrender or inflict such greater violence the other person can't imagine retaliating. It may be brutal but it got me through 29 years in NYC and not the nice parts now but crack time in the 80's and 90's. I have been a bar bouncer for many years working my way through school. I have been in dive bars from Long Island, Queens all the way upto Newburgh N.Y.. The biggest determining factor in the winner of most of the fights I've seen or been in was the proper mindset.

I mean no disrespect and really have no idea about your nation but from what I have read here and elsewhere maybe the difference has to do with our ability to carry and use handguns for self defense and the fact that you and your countrymen may not. This interview had nothing to do with "shooting sport" and the use of guns. In the same context we as Americans are a violent nation and therfore may be more desensitized to the nature of his sport. I personally love it, have many friends who train with big names and have met a few myself, and it reminds me of the barfights and brawls I was in but on a professional level.


While were at it understand that Disneyland which is the most innocent family friendly institution has a huge "what are you gonna do know" commercial after the Superbowl which is a culmination of many months of adult males competing in one of the most violent and bloody sports in our nation so I don't think it's such a bad link personally.





Short version: Sometimes I get winded and apologize but the condensed version is that he is discussing self defense and the defense of oneself is brutal and violent when it's to the point of life or death so it makes no difference to me who the spokesperson is. Anyone who does'nt understand the difference between "shooting sports" and self defense will not feel he is a good role-model for use of guns in any context. I personally believe a popular figure such as him is good.

I.b.t.l. ?

My point is: There are better means to portray a very diverse sport ie: shooting (self defense,target shooting,plinking,hunting,professional marksmenship etc.) to a general public. The public in CH or the USA is accustomed to seeing firearms in a negative light whether it is a school shooting,robbery or some other form of violence. Reafirrming this belief by having a proffesional bar fighter tout the sports (shooting's) merits are counterproductive in my opinion. Whom would you choose, given the choice, to be a poster child for the shooting sports? How would you try to portray the sport to new shooters, or even people neutral on the right to bear arms?
Would you choose a bloody knuckled bar fight as the poster child, I would hope not.

I understand your point even if I think a UFC fighter is more than a pro bar fighter. Your question as to who I would want to see as our spokesperon is everybody. I would love and interview with Frank Mir followed by a pro gun statement by Miss America followed by one delivered by Colonel Sanders. I think the more diversifed our spokepeople are the more diversified a group we speak to and reach our message to.

My point is: There are better means to portray a very diverse sport ie: shooting (self defense,target shooting,plinking,hunting,professional marksmenship etc.) to a general public. The public in CH or the USA is accustomed to seeing firearms in a negative light whether it is a school shooting,robbery or some other form of violence. Reafirrming this belief by having a proffesional bar fighter tout the sports (shooting's) merits are counterproductive in my opinion. Whom would you choose, given the choice, to be a poster child for the shooting sports? How would you try to portray the sport to new shooters, or even people neutral on the right to bear arms?
Would you choose a bloody knuckled bar fight as the poster child, I would hope not.

Click to expand...

This would be a valid point if not for one glaringly obvious fact; those that are likely to frown on cage fighting or gun ownership for self-defense are already likely to frown on the other as well.

Additionally, pretending armed self-defense is not about a very specific application of violence to resolve a conflict does nobody any favors. How well does it support us as a group if we can deceive ourselves about the realities of what we are supporting? Shooting someone in self-defense is a violent, bloody, nasty afair. Getting Girl Scouts of America to campaign for us, rather than Mr. Mir, isn't going to change this fact, and pretending it does only makes you look quixotic and naive.

A great many fence sitting American males who aren't decided on their convictions regarding gun control like to see grown men punch each other in the face. It is this crowd that Mir's comments are most likely to influence. These are the people who are likely to accept the violence inherent to self-defense.

Sheeple aren't going to flip through the channels and pause briefly to remark about the barbarianism of cage fighting while supporting the merits of "shall issue" concealed carry as a mean to control violent crime. They already have their minds made up about both issues. And any fence sitters that are turned away by the portrayal of violence in the UFC and it's support for armed self-defense likely don't have the stomach for either. Losing them is irrelevant to the continuation of our lifestyle.

MTMilitiaman



I could not agree more. It was well stated and to the point.( unlike mine)

Nevermind, (edited to remove condescending remarks)

Would you choose a bloody knuckled bar fight as the poster child, I would hope not.

Click to expand...

You're absolutely right! In fact let's use the usual beer swilling, mullet wearing redneck the public already expects...

HGUNHNTR your arguement is silly. The idea of putting forth a public image of a certain type of person as a gun owner is untruthful and borderline racist.

You're no different than Zumbo. Only this time your chastizing a persons choice of living instead of what type or firearm they use. All types of people own guns. Accept it.

I love the fact that the shooting sports attract a diverse range of people!! This is absolutely key for the sports, (and our rights) long term viability. If you want to watch ufc fighting go for it, I don't care! Like it or not, the way the non shooting public views our sport, which depends on which event in the media is getting the most press, can and will affect our rights long term.

If everyone had as good of an understanding of the diverse range of activities available as the people on this forum, I wouldn't care. However, we are in the minority, most people hear the word "Gun", and it brings to mind very different images than it would for you or I XDkingslayer.

Maybe this is to forward/longterm thinking, but changing the public perception of the shooting sports away from violence, should be a primary objective of all of us. I have read several heartening threads about taking immigrants shooting etc that have illustrated brilliantly the many positives of casting a positive light on our beloved sport.

I love the fact that the shooting sports attract a diverse range of people!! This is absolutely key for the sports, (and our rights) long term viability. If you want to watch ufc fighting go for it, I don't care! Like it or not, the way the non shooting public views our sport, which depends on which event in the media is getting the most press, can and will affect our rights long term.

If everyone had as good of an understanding of the diverse range of activities available as the people on this forum, I wouldn't care. However, we are in the minority, most people hear the word "Gun", and it brings to mind very different images than it would for you or I XDkingslayer.

Maybe this is to forward/longterm thinking, but changing the public perception of the shooting sports away from violence, should be a primary objective of all of us. I have read several heartening threads about taking immigrants shooting etc that have illustrated brilliantly the many positives of casting a positive light on our beloved sport.

Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Neither Mir nor I nor the majority of people on this thread are discussing shooting as a sport or recreational hobby. We are talking about self-defense with a firearm--something a great deal more serious. If someone doesn't have the stomach to watch a man bleed from a 1/2" cut on his eyebrow caused by the elbow of the man he was fighting under controlled conditions, then they probably don't have the stomach to send chunks of metal through the torso of another human being under conditions best described only as total chaos. It is not in the best interest of the "shooting sports" to confuse an afternoon on the range shooting cans with defensive shooting, nor is it in our best interest to try either deceive ourselves into believing defensive shootings are not messy and violent or to attract through deception those who lack the stomach for it.

Because self-defense is a predominant motivation for firearms ownership in this country and is viewed as a sacred and natural right ordained by a higher power, it is important for those interested in firearms ownership to understand and accept the realities of this past time.

I am not an athlete. I am a rifleman. I don't confuse my hobby with sports and I am okay with the fact that I stand ready to kill if my life is threatened or my home invaded. Because of this, I have no interest whatsoever is smoke screening the realities of this violent but necessary skill to sheeple and blissninnies.

They can either accept that self defense is the contributing factor to most gun ownership in this country, that if this is ever necessary, it is going to be violent and bloody, and that lives will be lost, or they can stick to other more legitimate "sports," like underwater basket weaving.

What you are suggesting is that the Discovery Channel never show a Cape Buffalo goring a lion because it is too violent to show what really happens in nature when animals such, such as humans, defend themselves. This doesn't do anyone any good, IMO. It doesn't matter if you add a Celine Dion sound track or pass out cotton candy--nobody who buys into this "sport" under the impression that the ability to kill isn't a motivating figure for many of the people sharing the range for them is going to maintain any interest in the hobby once the truth hits them. They must accept reality or move along.

And the reality is the most gun owners are more willing to accept violence than perhaps the average non-gun owner. This doesn't make them bloodthirsty or violent by nature, but accepting and appreciating the necessity of precisely placed violence to resolve a conflict is a big part of this "game." Not all of it, but nobody shooting clays should ever be disillusioned enough to believe that it is not originally intended as practice to kill things, that hunting isn't itself violent and bloody, or certainly that self defense isn't bloody and violent.

Violence does come with the territory. Accept it, or move along.

You sir are missing the point, my point is if I were trying to sell you a Cape Buffalo, I would not advertise by showing it goring humans.

I wish someone would develope an ignorance vaccine

You sir are missing the point, my point is if I were trying to sell you a Cape Buffalo, I would not advertise by showing it goring humans.

Click to expand...

What, you'd put a bow on it and place it in a box under the Christmas tree?

O, I get it! You just ignore the horns! I want to be there for that conversation:

[Arrive home from work with Cape Buffalo in tow, wife wonders out to greet you]
"Hey Honey! Look what I got!"
"What is it?"
"A Cape Buffalo."
"Why?"
"It's a Cape Buffalo!"
"It's big.'
"Yeah."
"What are the horns for..."

[crickets as awkward silence develops]
"Umm, you hang hats on them..."
"Oh. Does it want some cassoral?"

People like you are the reasons things like chainsaws have labels warning you not to do things like attempt to stop the chain with your hands. Most people accept when you buy a gun, it is capable of doing damage, and they accept this. Same with a chainsaw. And if I were ever to buy a Cape Buffalo, I would accept the fact that thousands of years of evolution did not give it a fancy hat rack on its head, that the horns were there for a reason.

Then there are people like you, who just choose to ignore the horns...

I wish someone would develope an ignorance vaccine

Click to expand...

Good. Then you could show up for the human trials.

I have always liked Frank Mir as a fighter and a commentator. However, I really gained a new respect for him. We need more people in the public eye like him.

ETA - Go go MTAMilitiaman!

Go Hillbilly Go! and save some cassoral for me!

Are wrestling, judo, karate, boxing, and kickboxing practiced at your local bar, Hgun?

Rich Franklin, the former UFC middleweight champ, was a math teacher at a highschool before he decided to make MMA his career.

Chuck Liddell, the former UFC light heavy weight champ, has his bachelors degree in accounting from Cal.

Matt Hughes, former UFC welterweight champ, is a pro-gun family man who is a farmer.

Randy Couture (the former UFC heavyweight champ) is pro-gun, served in the US Army, and was an Olympic alternate in wrestling.

Matt Lindland (one of the top middleweight fighters in the world) was an Olympic silver medalist in wrestling. He is pro-gun and running for a spot in the Oregon House of Representatives.

But nah they are just mindless hillbillies that duke it out in bar brawls.

Also, Frank will be one of the coaches on the next season of the Spike TV show "The Ultimate Fighter". A pro-gun advocate will be one of the stars of a show on primetime television.

wow im really suprised by the attitude of several gun people over the ufc
if anything these men are better gun people than any of you as they practise self defense without having to result to a gun on a competitive level


and since the ufc guys are barroom brawlers for their sport
you gun competition people must be trigger happy vigalantis or murderers right? same logic

It's funny how quick some of you are to turn on your own,maybe thats why the anti's have gotten away with as much as they have. I'm sure if Frank Mir wanted to speak against guns Sara Brady would stand next to him smiling. The UFC is
huge and is constantly breaking attendance and viewing records. Someone must be watching.

Very well said MTMilltiaman,you did all you could do. Sometimes you just gotta toss up your hands and walk away.